Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (T-91/11)
Judgment
Law
1.First plea in law, alleging that the…
Second part of the plea, concerning th…
The alleged discrimination arising fro…
–Preliminary observations
77

InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (T-91/11)

Judgment of 27 Feb 2014law://eu/cjeu/2011/t-91-11/para_77@2026-11-10

77It should be recalled that the principle of equal treatment is a general principle of EU law, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: General Court · Sixth Chamber
Case: T-91/11 · ECLI:EU:T:2014:92
Decided: 27 Feb 2014
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: InnoLux Corp.
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: G. Berardis
Bench: 3 judges
H. Kanninen, G. Berardis, C. Wetter
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62011TJ0091

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

History · 1 version

27 Feb 2014Reading

Connections

Cited by 21: Cargolux Airlines International SA v European Commission (C-401/22 P)3 provisions; Air France-KLM v European Commission (T-337/17); Latam Airlines Group SA and Lan Cargo SA v European Commission (T-344/17); Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v European Commission (T-343/17); SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v European Commission (T-324/17); Cargolux Airlines International SA v European Commission (T-334/17); British Airways plc v European Commission (T-341/17); Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV v European Commission (T-325/17); Japan Airlines Co. Ltd v European Commission (T-340/17); Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Others v European Commission (T-342/17); Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd v European Commission (T-350/17); Société Air France v European Commission (T-338/17); Air Canada v European Commission (T-326/17); Nichicon Corporation v European Commission (T-342/18)2 provisions; Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission (T-8/16); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (T-827/14); Slovak Telekom, a.s. v European Commission (T-851/14); Unichem Laboratories Ltd v European Commission (T-705/14); Taihan Electric Wire v European Commission (T-446/14); Intel Corp. v European Commission (C-413/14 P)2 provisions; Merck KGaA v European Commission (T-470/13)
Cites 21: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance); Orkem v Commission of the European Communities (374/87); A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission of the European Communities (89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85, 125/85, 126/85, 127/85, 128/85, 129/85); Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-224/00); Groupe Danone v Commission of the European Communities (T-38/02); Hoek Loos NV v Commission of the European Communities (T-304/02); T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV and Vodafone Libertel NV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (C-8/08); European Commission v Verhuizingen Coppens NV (C-441/11 P); Alliance One International Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp., and Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc. v European Commission and European Commission v Alliance One International Inc. and Others (C-628/10 P, C-14/11 P); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (C-280/08 P); Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala) (C-413/06); European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (C-46/98 P); Shell Petroleum NV and Others v European Commission (T-343/06); Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Central Bank (ECB) (C-401/09 P); ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA v European Commission and European Commission v ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA and Others (C-201/09 P, C-216/09 P); GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities v GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited and European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) v Commission of the European Communities and Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) v Commission of the European Communities (C-501/06); SA Musique Diffusion française and others v Commission of the European Communities (100/80, 101/80, 102/80, 103/80); Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission (C-550/07 P); European Commission v Alrosa Company Ltd (C-441/07 P)